Can’t step in unless there’s strong & glaring case, SC tells Waqf law petitioners

Noting that there’s presumption of validity in favour of laws passed by Parliament, the Supreme Court on Tuesday told petitioners challenging the validity of the Waqf (Amendment) Act-2025 that courts cannot step in unless there’s a clear and serious problem.

“There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there… we don’t need to say more,” a Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih told senior counsel Kapil Sibal, who represented the petitioners challenging the 2025 amendment.

The comments from the CJI came after Sibal claimed the law was unconstitutional. “The law is designed in such a way that a Waqf property is taken away without following any process… If I am on my deathbed and I want to make a Waqf, I have to prove that I have been a practising Muslim. This is unconstitutional,” Sibal submitted. Asserting that the petitioners had a strong prima facie case, Sibal claimed that an irreparable injury would be caused if the provisions were activated. He attacked the amendments for nullifying the principle of “once a Waqf, always a Waqf”.

Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan said he had a Sikh client who wanted to dedicate his property as Waqf, but it’s not allowed after the amendment while senior advocate AM Singhvi contested the Centre’s claims regarding exponential increase in Waqf properties since 2013.

Defending the Waqf (Amendment) Act-2025, the Centre contended that Waqf by its very nature was a “secular concept” and couldn’t be stayed, given the “presumption of constitutionality” in its favour as there was no “grave national urgency” requiring the law to be stayed.

In a written note submitted through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre said the law only sought to regulate secular aspects of Waqf administration while safeguarding religious freedoms. Mehta would respond to the petitioners’ arguments on Wednesday.

“It is a settled position in law that constitutional courts would not stay a statutory provision, either directly or indirectly, and will decide the matter finally. There is a presumption of constitutionality that applies to laws made by Parliament,” the note read.

The Bench is hearing the matter only for passing interim orders. The top court had on April 17 deferred passing any interim orders in the matter after the Centre undertook not to make any appointments to Waqf councils and Waqf boards or denotify existing Waqf properties, including Waqf-by-user or Waqf-by-deed properties already declared by notification or gazetted.

The top court has identified three key issues—Waqf by user, nomination of non-Muslims to the Waqf Council and state Waqf Boards, and identification of government land as Waqf property—for consideration at this stage for passing interim orders.